Tuesday, May 30, 2006

LUDACRIS & KANYE GOTTA TESTIFY, COME UP IN THE SPOT LOOKIN EXTRA FLY

I wish I was still in New York to witness the copyright infringement trial currently underway against Kanye West and Ludacris in federal district court.

If you subscribe to hip hop jurisprudential mailing lists, you know that a New Jersey group known as I.O.F. (which stands for It's Only Family) is suing 'Ye and Luda for the repeated use of the phrase "just like that" from Ludacris's hit song, "Stand Up," which Kanye produced. I.O.F. claims that the song's oft-repeated phrase "like that" was stolen from a song of theirs titled "Straight Like That."

The suit essentially boils down to whether an artist can claim copyright protection over the phrase "like that."

While I haven't read the complaint, my basic understanding of the law, hip hop, and I.O.F.'s claims leads to me conclude that their lawsuit is I.O.F. -- insanely, outrageously frivolous.

If I.O.F. prevails, any person could make a killing by just recording songs that feature the latest slang terms or phrases and send demos to other artists. Had I spent time on the streets of Vallejo and beat E-40 to the studio to record tracks titled "Ghostride the Whip" and "Watch 'Em Swang," I'd be a rich man now.

According to this article, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel instructed Kanye to take the stand and perform the profanity-laced first two lines of "Stand Up" for the jury. Afterwards, Judge Castel responded, "I'm sorry I asked ... I think I'm going to withdraw my question," and the jury laughed.

The potential for a circus has yet to be fully realized. Imagine the ludicrousness (no pun intended) of this trial further exacerbated by expert witnesses scrutinizing lines like "Put Louis Vuitton bras all over your breasts /Got me wanting to put hickies all over ya chest."

If I were representing I.O.F., I'd just bill my punk clients by the hour and waste time cross-examining Ludacris with credibility-challenging questions like:

"Isn't it true, Mr. Bridges, that your medallion, even when laced with reckless diamonds, never weighs so much as to feel like a midget hanging from your necklace?"

If I were the bailiff and had to announce the entrance of the judge into the courtroom, instead of shouting, "All rise!", I'd just yell, "Stand up!"

If I were Ludacris, I'd be tempted to pass the plaintiff a note quoting Biggie:

"Your daughter's tied up in a Brooklyn basement. Face it: not guilty. That's how I stay filthy richer than richie."

Finally, let's hope nobody spits a legal verdict in rhyme like the judge in the Eminem libel trial did.(Oliver pops in here: what's funny is that I got a call from my man A.M. the other morning...he's friends with one of the people called into, I presume, to be an "expert witness" for the defense and so we spent about 15 minutes on the phone brainstorming different songs that use a call-and-response format similar to "Stand Up." The Digable Planets was probably the most obvious but seriously, what hip-hop song has NOT used an antiphonal passage employing the phrase "like that"? This said, I'd like to hear the original I.O.F. song in question. --Oliver)

Which is to say, a majority -- 70 million voting-age Americans, to be precise -- currently distrust the federal government's official story of what took place on September 11.

The poll results aren't enlightening: even if 100% of Americans believe there was a cover-up, it doesn't prove there, in fact, was any conspiracy to conceal the truth.

What's significant, however, is what the numbers say about how our post-9/11 don't-question-our-government form of twisted patriotism is slowly -- and finally -- evaporating in the United States.

Three years ago, I was scared to even think, much less suggest, that the government might be hiding something about September 11. (And I was living in San Francisco and working in Berkeley!) If Zogby called me in 2003 to ask conspiracy-related questions, I would have assumed the CIA was secretly trying to trick me into saying something that would land me a one-way vacation to Guantanamo Bay.

I am especially surprised that this week's Zogby poll also asks about the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any planes on 9/11. The very fact that people are being polled about it seems momentous since many major news outlets have yet to report on it.

Of course, I could live for another 100 years and I still doubt I will live to see an investigation of WTC7.

*

On a related note, I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on the trailers for World Trade Center, which has absolutely nothing to do with conspiracy theories, despite the fact that it's an Oliver Stone film.

I don't consider myself to be in the "it's too soon to do a movie about 9/11" camp.

But the trailer is unexplainably discomforting, as if I'm watching something I shouldn't be watching. I can't decide if it's exploitative, manipulative, jingoistic, just a bad tv-movie-of-the-week, or all of the above.

--Junichi

Monday, May 22, 2006

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #58

--Junichi

Sunday, May 21, 2006

THE KING OF NON-CONFORMISTS IS DEAD

Andrew Martinez circa 1992

Andrew Martinez was a pivotal character in my college experience at Berkeley.

Before he became "The Naked Guy," he spent time hanging around Cheney Hall, where I was an RA. At first, I thought he was narcissistic, as he walked everywhere shirtless, showing off his tall, tanned, Adonis-like body. But because we shared a mutual friend, I eventually had a few casual conversations with him. To my surprise, he was an incredibly nice, down-to-earth, and brilliant guy ... who just happened to buck social conventions about wearing clothes.

Andrew soon became the first person I knew who achieved instant national celebrity. As everyone knows, he eventually led a "nude-in" on campus, which I witnessed (but refused to participate in, despite requests from my residents to join them). He was expelled from Berkeley for violating campus laws prohibiting nudity and charged with city laws. Soon he was everywhere -- on Montel Williams, CNN, and in Playgirl (after receiving a paltry stipend for less than $500).

I never found his cause for public nudity rights to be compelling. At a time when immigrant rights were being eviscerated and ethnic cleansing was being ignored, his right to walk in the buff lacked any urgency.

But I supported him. I admired his balls (figuratively speaking). It certainly takes a special person to prompt Berkeley, home of the Free Speech Movement, to deny his First Amendment rights. No doubt, he was the king of non-conformity.

After I graduated, I never saw him or heard about him again. I assumed he was walking the earth naked (or wearing a pin-striped suit to some corporate job).

Today, I was really saddened to learn that after Andrew was expelled from Berkeley, he apparently struggled with mental health issues and spent a decade in psychiatric institutions, homeless on the streets, and eventually in jail. He was recently charged with multiple felonies, including assault with a deadly weapon, and was held in solitary confinement at the Santa Clara County Main Jail.

This is very hard for me to accept, as Andrew was a sweet-tempered man and hardly the type to assault anybody.

Even more tragically, on Thursday, he died from an apparent suicide attempt while in the hole. Jail authorities found him with a plastic bag cinched around his head.

Now I sadly wonder what might've happened had he been allowed to walk around campus au naturel and graduate.

--O.W.

LANGUAGE WARS = MUST BE AN ELECTION SEASON

Talk about ridiculously unnecessary legislation and election season pandering (and I'm including politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle). Expect to see yet another resurrection of a flag-burning amendment crop up too.

Besides, everyone knows the unofficial language of America is going to be Spandaringlish by 2050 anyways.

--O.W.

JUNICHI TAKES THE LONG WAY WITH THE DIXIE CHICKS

I'm excited to make the official announcement that I will be spending the next seven months as an exclusive professional blogger for the Dixie Chicks.

No joke. The Dixie Chicks, as in the most successful female band of all time.

To my complete astonishment, I have been given an all-access pass to the Dixie Chicks in exchange for writing about my journeys on their new website on MSN. Essentially, I will follow and hang out with the Chicks wherever and whenever they are rehearsing, playing, promoting, camping, bowling, or doing anything interesting.

I have already spent a grip of hours with these ridiculously talented and unpredictably hilarious women during their tour rehearsals, performances, and promotional events. But the full immersion begins in June when I join them for two concerts (one with the Eagles) in London. Then, in mid-July, I will pile into their tour bus as they launch their North American tour in Detroit.

If you are having a hard time absorbing this, maybe you should stop stereotyping Asian American male hip hop fans from California as being unable to document the lives of an all-female country-rock trio from Texas, you bigot.

By the way, I've already been falsely labeled by cuckoo right-wing websites as "anti-American." Of course, this isn't surprising given that the Chicks continue to be boycotted, dismissed as "Saddam's Angels", and accused of treason for repeatedly criticizing President Bush. Ahhh ... I've entered the fold.

As you might imagine, for a band whose last three albums reached over 30 million in sales, their schedule and life is insane. In the next two weeks alone, they have promotional appearances on Letterman (this Monday, 5/22), Howard Stern (this Thursday, 5/25), Good Morning America (5/22-5/26), Larry King (5/31), and interviews and/or performances with Fresh Air, XM, Sirius, AOL Sessions, CNN, All Things Considered, and Access Hollywood, as well as a free concert in Bryant Park next Friday.

The first batch of my Dixie Chicks essays and blog entries are now live on the MSN site. I've provided links below. Please check it out, and regularly. No interesting detail will go unreported. I strongly encourage you to leave comments and/or send me feedback.

For the fans, the MSN site also features exclusive previews of new tracks, tour dates, and ticket pre-sale info.

By the way, I should point out that I don't technically work for the Dixie Chicks, meaning that I am free to criticize.

With that disclaimer, I swear upon everything I consider sacred that their new album, Taking the Long Way, which drops on Tuesday, is nothing short of incredible.

Finally, lest you think I'm trying to punk y'all, here below is an un-Photoshopped photo. The Dixie Chicks camp has bestowed me with the title of "Management Assistant" to help ensure full access. As you'll see from the photo, I put my new title, in abbreviated form, on a t-shirt because, well, that's how I roll.

--O.W.

MAKE BABIES, SAVE AMERICAN CIVILIZATION

I know suggesting that John Gibson is out of his mind is about as obvious as noting at the sun is bright but you have to just sit in amazement at a recent editorial that, not so subtly, suggests that white people need to have more babies in order to prevent American from becoming a majority Latino nation (I guess Gibson doesn't really include "white" Latinos as being white enough):

What's especially impressive is how how he tries to spin it at the end. Lest we think he's advocating for White Nationalism (which is pretty much what it sounds like to anyone outside of Fox Corp), Gibson tries to argue that "civilizations need population" and therefore, if America is going to survive, it needs ALL people to procreate: "Hispanics can't pull all the weight."

--O.W.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

LYRICAL ANALYSIS: LL, LACHEY & LEEK

In this edition of Lyrical Analysis, I will scrutinize and dissect new songs by LL Cool J, Nick Lachey, and Young Leek. Here we go.

"Control Myself" - L.L. Cool J feat. Jennifer Lopez

[Jennifer Lopez:]No me puedo controlarAqui con el Señor LL Cool J

This song's spoken introduction exposes Ms. Lopez's lack of familiarity with the Spanish language. Obviously, LL Cool J's name in Spanish should be translated either "LL Fresco J" or "Señoras Aman Fresco Jaime." This is America, J. Lo -- learn to speak Spanish!

Now as for LL Cool J's lines ...

Her top was short and purpleBelly dancing in a circleWhen I feel like thisI can't resistStop it don't make me hurt you...It's hard to control myself

LL seems to cop his own flow from "Going Back to Cali" and rhymes in limericks because he's old school like the Irish.

But when it comes to meaningful lyrics, LL is like the potato famine: great.

In this song, LL bravely confesses his uncontrollable propensity to engage in domestic violence. Notice in the excerpt above how he reveals how it is especially "hard" for him to refrain from "hurting" women, especially when their shirts are "short" and "purple."

So ladies, don't wear a purple sports bra around LL Fresco J ... unless you want to get punched in the face. One cannot expect him to control himself.

* * *

"What's Left of Me" - Nick Lachey

Nick Lachey is attempting to re-launch his solo career with this ditty that features the following lyrics:

... I feel you driving underneath my skinLike a hunger, like a burning,To find a place I've never beenNow I'm broken, and I'm faded,I'm half the man I thought I would be.But you can have what's left of me.

While some believe this song to be about leprosy, Mr. Lachey is actually detailing his losing battle with scabies.

The "burning" which is "underneath [his] skin" is a thinly-veiled reference to an ectoparasitic skin infection. Upon reading these lyrics, one can readily diagnose that the female mite, or Sarcoptes Scabiei, has tunneled into the stratum corneum of his genitals, which explains why he is only "half" a man.

The chorus is his final act of selfless love, in which he offers the remaining unscarred portions of his manhood to the other chicken in the sea.

* * *

"Jiggle It" - Young Leek

Young Leek, whose name is synonymous with juvenile bed-wetting, has released this catchy dance song that includes the following verse:

I'm a young dude but you know I'm street smartI had this girl, she was sweet just like a SweetTartIf you see me in the club, you know I'm not a retardI'm young, fly and flashy, and that's what you thought

Can you handle his complex poetic craft?

In the first line, Mr. Leek juxtaposes his contradictory personal traits. On the one hand, he is "a young dude," but we are surprised to learn that he is also "street smart." While our society generalizes only elderly women to be "street smart," Mr. Leek 'flips the script,' as they say in convalescent homes.

Lil' Leek manages to tap into our collective subconscious, which understands that he cannot possibly be "a retard" because he is "young, fly, and flashy." Indeed, most retards are old and dull.

Mr. Leek is not satisfied by describing his girl as simply "sweet." Rather, she is "sweet just like a SweetTart," meaning that she is tangy, mouth-puckering, and comes in variations like chewable and giant.

I have not heard such a brilliant candy-related simile since T.S. Eliot's poem, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, in which Prufrock commands his confidante to "shake dat laffy taffy."

* * *

Until next time, let us all jiggle it.

--Junichi

Monday, May 15, 2006

THE FINE LINE

different but same?

In the hierarchy of "writing" (assuming there is one) - where does blogging fit?

This has been a question I've struggled with for a long time and once again, it's cropped up in my previous post re: the Cook/Frere-Jones/Hopper debate. The main issue there is whether or not one's musical tastes has anything to do with politics and to be honest, right now, I'm not all that interested in that part of the debate. I'm already well familiar with it, especially in how elusive a consensus conclusion is. Moreover, others are doing a better job of delving in, including a recent Jeff Chang post on the tension between rockism and popism.

Instead, I'm more interested in asking: how do we fairly and reasonably evaluate something written on a blog vs. through a more "professional" outlet? CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...

My issue with Cook's essay could be boiled down to this: whether I agree with the merits of his argument or not, I just didn't think it was the kind of story that belonged in Slate...or any similar publication since Cook was exclusively responding to comments made by Sasha and Jessica on their blogs. If Cook wanted to respond to them, I feel like it would have been more "appropriate" to do so on his own blog, or on ILM, or some place other than a professional publication.[1]

By saying all this, I know it sounds like I'm trying to dictate a set of rules for a rather rule-less medium and thereby, opening myself up for all kinds of challenges. John Cook himself already served up one in the comments section, writing:

"If he [Sasha] or Hopper didn't want their ideas to be consumed, and potentially challenged, by other people, they shouldn't have communicated those ideas on the internet. It's not a private sandbox. Their blogs may have a lower readership than Slate, and vastly fewer resources, but they all have precisely the same distribution."[2]

A friend of mine, a writer from Los Angeles, emailed me the following comment as well:

"By the way: I don't get all the blogger complaints that they can't understand why Slate picked this up. It sounds like a bunch of writers -- all of whom I think are "journalists" who write for papers and mags and do radio etc as well as blog -- professing to be shrinking ultraviolets who can't take it when their ideas get picked up and appraised by the em ess em [aka MSM aka "mainstream media"]. Does this mean they'll stop complaining about the MSM not listening to blogs the rest of the long day?"[3]

These both raise very fair points so let me try to wade through this:

First of all, I am not advocating that critics should not be subject to criticism themselves. I think it's perfectly valid - even healthy - for writers/journalists/critics to have their ideas openly debated, confronted, etc.[4]

This said, does blogging = all other kinds of writing? Are people really suggesting that what appears on a blog should be treated on the same level of intellectual discourse as something that appears in the pages of The New Yorker (or any other prominent, respected publication of the literati?) Or, as another friend put it to me in an IM convo earlier, (I'm paraphrasing here): "can we assume that a blog post even counts as "discourse?"

I don't want to turn this into a debate around semantics so let me simplify a bit and ask: isn't one of the important qualities of blogs the fact that they are unregulated, uncontrolled, unedited spaces for one to air out thoughts, grievances, ideas, etc. without the need for refinement, revision, or even good sense? In other words - and this repeats something I wrote in my last post - is blogging meant to mean anything more than a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s--- because it's nice to have a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s---?[5]

By saying that, I'm not suggesting that blogging = a Get Out of Accountability Free Card. Yes, you are absolutely allowed to write in and say, "hey dude, that was some stupid s--- you wrote today." No doubt, someone is already flexing their fingers to write this in my comments box below.

But do readers actually think a magazine essay and a blog entry are on the "same level"? Just because a piece of writing appears in any public space, does that mean that the spirit in which something was written suddenly becomes immaterial to how that piece of writing should be treated or responded to?

To put it even simpler, as my friend (who asked whether the average blog post even qualifies as discourse) pointed out, "it's a f----ng blog!" which I think sums up, quite nicely, the sentiments that many people - including people who actually blog - share about blogging: it's a fun activity, it allows us to express things or address topics we may not get to do elsewhere in our lives but, at the end of the day, it's a f----ing blog.

Call me crazy, but to me, blogging is a lot closer to an argument you get into with friends at a bar than it is a debate hosted by the Commonwealth Club of California. Just because both are technically "public" doesn't mean they should be treated the same.

Take this entry itself: it's long, it's rambling, it's probably not as well thought out as it could be vs. if I had been asked by Wired to opine on the subject for an op-ed piece. But I can do this because it's a blog and this, to me, is the nature of the medium. I'm not required or obligated to be concise, insightful or even, you know, intelligible. But wouldn't it seem rather ridiculous for another writer to read this post, then write an essay around it for, say, Wired and point out that my ideas are rambling and unintelligible? Seems like a waste to drop a publication's mountain of resources on top of, uh, my molehill.

My last point: the reason why any of this matters to me is because I don't want blogging to turn into formal debates hosted by the Commonwealth Club. I want to hear the bar argument - I want to hear otherwise deliberate and calculated thinkers come off the cuff with some outrageous bulls--- because if I wanted to know what they thought in a more studied light, I can always read their professional opinions elsewhere.

Personally? Some days, I'd just rather read what they have to say on their f---ing blog.[1] Just to note, certainly there are exceptions to this rule. It's perfectly valid for a publication to report on a phenomenon that is principally generated through blogs. Publications do this sort of thing, all the time (hello "Lazy Sunday"). However, in the case of Cook's essay, I don't think he ever adequately supports the claim that what Jessica and Sasha wrote constituted a "campaign of sorts" nor do their respective posts even really qualify as a "meme" unless a "meme" = "more than one blogger writing about something."

In this case, Cook wasn't going after a wide-spread meme where Merritt was being labeled a racist by dozens, let alone hundreds of netizens. If there were a 400 post thread on ILM or Okaplayer.com about Merritt's potential racism, I dare doubt the Slate article would exist. More to the point, I really doubt Cook could have sold Slate on the story without Sasha's NYer position in particular and I think you can infer from Cook's own comments in his story that this was indeed the case.

[2] If means of distribution level the playing field between blogging and Slate, I know a lot of bloggers - not getting .75/word - who might want to chime in about that.

[3] I'm not sure if these two groups of writers are the same. In any case, taking blogging seriously is not the same as taking the writing on blogging as seriously as it would if it appeared in, say, Los Angeles Magazine. If we're actually at that level, does that mean I can submit blog entries to the magazine? ;)

[4] Unless it's by overly sensitive indie rappers.

[5] I realize that for many people, blogging is their sole outlet for the public sharing of thoughts, ideas, rants, raves, etc. and therefore, many of them refine their writing for blogs with the same kind of intensity that others of us might do for more formal publications. It's still a blog though.

--O.W.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #57

You're fired.

This Week's Question: Tericka Dye was fired from her job as a science teacher and volleyball coach at a Kentucky high school after school officials learned she appeared in an adult movie more than ten years ago, when she was 23.

Ms. Dye claims she only appeared in the pornographic film because she had no home or income at the time and her bipolar disorder wasn't being treated.

If you were the School Superintendent, would you have fired Tericka Dye?

--Junichi

Sunday, May 14, 2006

ANSWERS TO TRIVIA QUESTIONS

WINNER: Jeremy Somers! (not pictured)

A few days ago, to celebrate Poplicks.com's one-year anniversary, Junichi and I posted 20 difficult questions in our first-ever trivia contest.

We are happy to announce that there was a tie between Jimmy Thong Tran of San Francisco, California and Jeremy Somers, a graduating student at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Both scored an impressive 12.5 points.

Since Jeremy Somers submitted his answers before Jimmy Thong Tran (which, according to the posted rules, breaks any ties), we'll be sending Jeremy some graduation presents as his prize. Mr. Tran, your consolation prize is that your middle name is still Thong.

Q3: Before Wayne Wang made the groundbreaking Chan Is Missing, he was working at a Chinatown organization in San Francisco, using that experience to base many of his characters off of. What was the name of that organization?

A: Chinatown Resources Development Center (later renamed Career Resources Development Center. Disclosure: I, Oliver, worked for them from 1994-95, which is why I knew this piece of info to begin with).

Q4: Name the two famous Shakespearean characters most likely to be mentioned when an air control tower is communicating with an approaching airplane pilot.

A: Romeo and Juliet. They represent the R and J in the NATO Phonetic Alphabet, which is used by air traffic control towers.

Q14: What current baseball team's former name is also a beverage that was endorsed by the late Redd Foxx?

A: Houston Astros. They were once known as the Houston Colt .45s.

Q15: In January of 1990, The Source put out their "Rap Music Decade: 1980-1990" special issue, in which they list the editors' Top 44 Old School Hits and Top 40 "Def In the Now School" picks. Name one of the songs from the Top 3 on each list.A: Top 3 Old School = 1) Cold Crush Brothers' "Fresh, Wild, Fly and Bold." 2) Spoonie Gee and the Treacherous Three's "New Rap Language." 3) The Fearless Four's "Rockin' It". Top 3 New School = 1) Ultramagnetic MC's "Ego Trippin" 2) KRS One/BDP's "The P Is Free." 3) KRS One/BDP's "I'm Still Number One (Numero Uno Remix)

Q16: The Orange County Register once quoted Whoopi Goldberg as saying, "Stay off my eye color because if I want to change it I will." Who was she addressing?

A: Spike Lee, who criticized her blue eyes.

Q17: Name three of the Senior Contributing Writers who worked on Classic Material.

A: F. Murray Abraham, who is of Syrian heritage. Everyone else has at least one parent of Lebanese heritage.

Q19: What former cheerleader from South Carolina first appeared on national television on The Price is Right before eventually doing cameo appearances on Full House and Married ... With Children?

A: Vanna White

Q20: Translate Oliver's daughter's surname from Japanese/Chinese to English.A: Her surname is Mizota-Wang. Wang is easy, that means "king" in Mandarin. Mizota is not that well-known, it means "ditch by the side of the road" in Japanese. Therefore, one could argue that my daughter's surname means "king of the ditch at the side of the road."

--O.W.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

BIG UPS AND DOWNS

John McCain. Thank you, Senator McCain, for showcasing your true hardcore conservative colors. By embracing Jerry Falwell and switching policy positions that have veered your "Straight Talk Express" to the hard right, you have eviscerated my fear that leftists and moderates might vote you into the White House.

DJ Star (a.k.a. Troi Torain). Power 105's morning DJ threatened, on-air, to rape and pee into the mouth of rival DJ Envy's (of Hot 97) four year-old daughter, offered $500 to any listener who provided him the name of the school she attends, and referred to DJ Envy's half-Asian wife as "a slanty eye whore wife," "half a lo mein eater," and a "gook". He was fired and later arrested. Who would have predicted that Hot 97 would be the victim of racial hatred? (Credit: hiphopmusic)

Grey's Anatomy. Already boasting one of the most diverse casts on television, Grey's Anatomy continues to utilize a Benetton squad for its secondary characters and cameo appearances. With extra ranging from Natalie Cole to John Cho, this show does good reflecting all Americans. However ...

John Cho. I support you all the way, John, and you know that. But your role on last week's Grey's Anatomy was as a hard-working Asian American medical student who is also a bad driver. You're not breaking down any stereotypes, my brother! (Credit: DH)

Arthur McClure a.k.a. The Easter Bunny. When a frustrated woman at a Florida mall complained about the early closing of Easter Bunny photo sessions, Mr. McClure -- who was in costume as the Easter Bunny -- punched the woman in the face. I don't see anything praiseworthy in Mr. McClure's violence or his pugilist interpretation of Jesus Christ's resurrection rabbit. However, I do appreciate that he told the local police that his occupation is "Easter Bunny."

Paris Hilton. Because she still only has one facial expression ...

--Junichi

Friday, May 12, 2006

WHITE NOISE SUPREMACISTS APOLOGISTS

Look - I'm not one to snub the cultural impact/importance of blogging. And yeah, yeah, maybe we're on the "cusp" of a "paradigm shift" in terms of how the online writing world is catching up with the print world. But seriously, are we really living in an age now where blogging is meant to mean anything more than a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s--- because it's nice to have a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s---?

Which isn't to say that smart things don't get said on blogs - 'tis happens all the time (maybe not here but...). But for chrissake, blogs, by the very nature of their being, are more or less the grown-up equivalent of my daughter's Magna-Doodle. You scribble on them, maybe show a few friends ("look, I drew a kitty!"), and then wipe the slate clean to start on a new post. The problem is that, with blogs, everything gets archived somewhere. Damn you Technorati/Google Blogsearch!

There are some larger philosophical questions to be hashed out here and it's unfortunate that Cook - or perhaps an overzealous Slate editor - chose to frame one of them with such a overblown accusation as the piece's subtitle suggests: "Is Stephin Merritt a racist because he doesn't like hip-hop?" Not only is this a disingenuous reduction of what some of the key issues are, it's really a convenient strawman argument that far too many knee-jerkers have latched onto. Predictably, they're sputtering their righteous indignation without actually, you know, bothering to really read Cook's article, let alone follow the chain of evidence in order to arrive at a better understanding of what's actually been debated.

Like I said, there are some actually important philosophical issues at stake here but let me first address an obvious point that stands in front of all this:

What does it mean that a reputable publication - let alone Slate.com - green-lights a "cover" story about what someone - even the music critic for The New Yorker - writes on their blog?

Seriously - if Sasha were slamming Merritt in the New Yorker itself...that'd be a story, sort of. (At least Gawker might care). However, without Sasha's blog entries, Cook's got nada to write about. And even at that, most of Sasha's more pointed critiques of Merritt came two years ago. Did I mention it was on a blog?

I'm not suggesting that blogs should carry no accountability - I'd never suggest that. But as fast as the online and print worlds are fusing together the way, say, two colliding cars fuse together, I just don't think we're at the stage where the two can - or should - be conflated. What someone writes on a blog cannot be treated the same as something that appears in a publication after it's been vetted by a few editors, if not a legal staff, and then offered up - stamped with institutional approval - to a mass public.

Cook argues, "He ought to take the things he writes on his blog seriously," which makes no sense because if Sasha's comments were meant to be un-serious, then why would anyone - let alone Cook - care? I think what Cook perhaps meant to say instead was, "He ought to be held accountable for the things he writes on his blog" (a sentiment that I doubt Sasha would contest). But I also think the most appropriate forum for Cook to have said that would have been...a blog of his own. At least there, acting royally ass-hurt is a way of life. (For all of us). Back to what should have been the core question being raised here: what are the politics of personal taste?

Someone is not a racist just because they don't like hip-hop. However, in my experience, people's reasons for not liking hip-hop are rarely so simple as, "it doesn't move me." There are often layers of racial undertones (and occasionally, quite explicit overtones) for why people dislike hip-hop. (In all fairness, those same forces also explain why many people love hip-hop.)

To put it another way, no other music in the last quarter century is as thoroughly infused with meanings and images of race as rap. Pretending race isn't an inherent part to the music itself is simply an act of denial. Race need not be the only reason people enjoy or don't enjoy hip-hop but you can't brush it away as if it wasn't a factor at all.

Similarly, one cannot talk about the history of American pop music in the 20th century without talking about Blackness and the impact and contributions of African American artists since, you know, Black music basically helped pioneer every major genre we have. Yeah, country too.

One may have aesthetic reasons for not liking Black music (though, for the life of me, I cannot possibly imagine what that might be, especially if you claim to like pop music at all) but when tasked with creating a list for to be published not in a blog but rather, say, the NY Times or even Time Out (i.e. places that more than 1,000 people read), one should have the good sense to realize that they are no longer merely sharing taste but are canon-building.

People don't have to like that their personal tastes and choices come attached to politics - and sure, feel free to quote Carol Hanisch here - but 1) that doesn't mean that one's personal choices are devoid of power and politics and 2) that doesn't excuse someone from having to take accountability for their tastes, especially if they're using that platform of a major print publication in which to share said tastes.

Moral of the story: Stephin Merritt needs a blog. Maybe him and Cook can start one together. Last point: more proof that the world of music fans are filled with men who probably were either spanked too much (or not enough) as adolescents: Hopper's been fielding emails from people calling her a "stupid b----" and "idiot c---" (btw, from speaking with other women music writers, this is practically a daily occurrence) as if her sex had anything to do with her opinions. Mr. F-J, on the other hand, reports "unanimous civility" in the emails he's gotten.

I can promise you this double standard is not on account of position: if Jessica were at the New Yorker and Sasha at the Reader, best believe Hopper's hate mail would overfloweth even more. Jessica notes: "And those of you journalists, who feel called to rep for journalists everywhere when you call me an "idiot c---", best blv I will not hesitate to print yr emails with yr name and your publication's signature footnoted at the bottom right here on this blog."

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

POPLICKS TRIVIA CHALLENGE

You can use any resources you want, including search engines and contacting friends. (But keep in mind that only one person gets the credit and prizes.)

We must receive your answers via email to trivia @ poplicks.com (without the spaces) by Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 9 am Pacific Standard Time. Answers received after the deadline will neither be read nor scored.

In your email, please put your name in the subject of the email and number all your answers.

If you provide more than one answer to a question, you will get no credit.

If you're close, we reserve the right to give partial credit.

Spelling does not matter, so long as it's close.

If any question (or answer) is deemed to be ambiguous, misleading, or inaccurate, the question will be eliminated.

The person who answers the most questions correctly will receive a package of stuff including various mixtapes, Pez dispensers, and other miscellaneous stuff clogging up our homes.

If there is a tie, the person who submitted his or her entry first wins.

The results and correct answers will be posted no later than next Monday, May 15, 2006.

And here are the 20 questions. Good luck!

1. What font is "Poplicks.com" (above) written in?

2. Name a former foreign leader, currently on trial for crimes against humanity, who once received a key to a major American city.

3. Before Wayne Wang made the groundbreaking Chan Is Missing, he was working at a Chinatown organization in San Francisco, using that experience to base many of his characters off of. What was the name of that organization?

4. Name the two famous Shakespearean characters most likely to be mentioned when an air control tower is communicating with an approaching airplane pilot.

14. What current baseball team's former name is also a beverage that was endorsed by the late Redd Foxx?

15. In January of 1990, The Source put out their "Rap Music Decade: 1980-1990" special issue, in which they list the editors' Top 44 Old School Hits and Top 40 "Def In the Now School" picks. Name one of the songs from the Top 3 on each list.

16. The Orange County Register once quoted Whoopi Goldberg as saying, "Stay off my eye color because if I want to change it I will." Who was she addressing?

17. Name three of the Senior Contributing Writers who worked on Classic Material.

--O.W.

Monday, May 08, 2006

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #56

--Junichi

Thursday, May 04, 2006

WHY I WILL NEVER BECOME HYPNOTIZED

You are getting very sleepy ...

I trace my fear of hypnotists to my fifth grade summer. I worked for a local puppeteer and dressed up in furry animal outfits as a "costume entertainer" at the Tulare County Fair in 100+ degree heat. I walked around hugging fairgoers and unintentionally scaring the stool out of little children.

We costumed animals shared a dressing room with the hypnotist who performed packed shows every few hours. He was an older male who looked like the older model on the Brawny paper towels, except not quite as 70s-gay-pornstar-ish.

The hypnotist had a young female assistant who dressed in a sequined bathing suit with shiny nylons, reminiscent of Vegas' off-strip tacky waitress outfits. She always had this blank stare, a suspiciously subservient attitude, and less personality than a Stepford clone. My little elementary school self was convinced that he had kidnapped some poor woman and permanently hypnotized her into being his slave.

I've attended enough hypnotist shows to see how effectively hypnotists can channel the darkest, freakiest parts of the most otherwise-inhibited persons. Hypnosis is like alcohol, rohypnol, and amnesia in one.

In my opinion, the only reason hypnotists don't force participants to strip and engage in depraved orgies is that they won't ever get booked at any fair, school, or corporate function again.

With the exception of male dentists, I can't think of any creepier class of employees than hypnotists that are likely to molest people on the DL.

--Junichi

Monday, May 01, 2006

THE BEST POLITICAL SPEECH OF THE 21ST CENTURY

A Man with Balls

One of the greatest -- and saddest -- things about the United States is that our comedians are currently the ones delivering the most honest, no-holds-barred commentary on our current political situation.

At the top of the list is Stephen Colbert, who currently has the funniest show on television (now that Arrested Development has been cancelled). Sadly, his audience seems to be limited to those too lazy to switch channels after The Daily Show is over. The upshot of his limited exposure is that many of the Republican Congresspersons that Colbert interviews don't seem to understand that he's mocking their politics and goading them into making outrageous statements.

But on Saturday night, Colbert had the rare opportunity to unleash his subversive satire upon his very targets, as he was the featured entertainer at the White House Press Correspondents Dinner. Among those attending were President Bush, Laura Bush, Justice Scalia, Senator John McCain, Valerie Plame, Mayor Ray Nagin, Drew Lachey (?), Ludacris (!), Anna Kournikova (?!?), and the entire White House Press Corps.

Whoever booked Stephen Colbert to "entertain" President Bush deserves an award for subversiveness, if not outright sedition.

But Colbert himself seized this rare opportunity and knocked it out of the park. He delivered not only a hilarious routine, but one of the most ballsy, shocking, and stinging rebukes of the Bush Administration ... while standing a few feet from the Commander in Chief. Every word was protest nonpareil and one of the bravest acts of political dissent this side of the millennium.

Colbert's arsenal of jokes were largely culled from his show, but to see him deliver the assault in front of his prey was, literally, porn on CSPAN. It's not often we get to see someone tell the Emperor that he's buck nekkid.

Although I am still giggling with giddiness, Colbert's actual audience was a tough crowd. But what do you expect when the spectators -- politicians and press -- are the butt of the jokes?

I uploaded a video of his brilliant performance here. Watch for the jaws dropping.

STEPHEN COLBERT: ... My name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it's my privilege to celebrate this president. We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? ...

I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term. ...

I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq. ...

And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the right to their own religion, be you Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." All right. The president in this case is Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed is -- everything else in the world. It's the tenth round. He's bloodied. His corner man, Mick, who in this case I guess would be the vice president, he's yelling, "Cut me, Dick, cut me!," and every time he falls everyone says, "Stay down! Stay down!" Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky, he gets back up, and in the end he -- actually, he loses in the first movie. OK. Doesn't matter.

The point is it is the heart-warming story of a man who was repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound -- with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world. ...

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew. ...

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ...

Everybody asks for personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you write, "Oh, they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg! ...

Justice Scalia is here. Welcome, sir. May I be the first to say, you look fantastic. How are you? [After each sentence, Colbert makes a hand gesture, an allusion to Scalia's recent use of an obscene Sicilian hand gesture in speaking to a reporter about Scalia's critics. Scalia is seen laughing hysterically.] Just talking some Sicilian with my paisan.

John McCain is here. John McCain, John McCain, what a maverick! Somebody find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you it wasn't a salad fork. This guy could have used a spoon! There's no predicting him. By the way, Senator McCain, it's so wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I have a summer house in South Carolina; look me up when you go to speak at Bob Jones University. So glad you've seen the light, sir.

Mayor Nagin! Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city! Yeah, give it up. Mayor Nagin, I'd like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., the chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of corruption. It's a Mallomar, I guess is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.

Joe Wilson is here, Joe Wilson right down here in front, the most famous husband since Desi Arnaz. And of course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my god! Oh, what have I said? [looks horrified] I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along his lovely wife Joe Wilson's wife. Patrick Fitzgerald is not here tonight? OK. Dodged a bullet.

And, of course, we can't forget the man of the hour, new press secretary, Tony Snow. Secret Service name, "Snow Job." Toughest job. What a hero! Took the second toughest job in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq.